All Discussions Tagged 'tyson' - Think Atheist2015-03-31T21:30:19Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topic/listForTag?tag=tyson&feed=yes&xn_auth=noAtheist / Agostic Debatetag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-03-29:1982180:Topic:12849902013-03-29T06:01:53.348ZJulian Fianderhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JulianFiander
<p>I've heard a bunch of quite well-known scientists and other famous people (e.g. Niel deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye) who have claimed that scientists, to be true to themselves, "must" be agnostic, not atheist. Their defense of this is that since there is no evidence, a decision can't be made one way or the other on the existence of any mythical beings.</p>
<p>Isn't this kind of claim not entirely valid, though? Does there have to be positive evidence either supporting or contradicting something to…</p>
<p>I've heard a bunch of quite well-known scientists and other famous people (e.g. Niel deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye) who have claimed that scientists, to be true to themselves, "must" be agnostic, not atheist. Their defense of this is that since there is no evidence, a decision can't be made one way or the other on the existence of any mythical beings.</p>
<p>Isn't this kind of claim not entirely valid, though? Does there have to be positive evidence either supporting or contradicting something to make a claim about it, or can a staggering (significant...) lack of any evidence -- when evidence would essentially be expected -- defend a similar claim from a negative aspect as well?</p>
<p>It seems to me that saying "there is no specific evidence, therefore: agnostic" is being dishonest to oneself. This brings up arguments like Bertrand's Teapot, IPU, FSM, or even a "square circle". While there isn't any universe-encompassing body of evidence that rules such things out, the complete lack of any evidence of any sort is really just a different kind of evidence, isn't it?</p>
<p>Do you have any unique perspectives, particular experiences, or tidbits to offer to help solve this fluke of reasoning?</p>